alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

National Aquaculture Health Plan &

Standards (NAHP&S): 2021-2023

Last Modified: 

Print

The United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service (APHIS) released the National Aquaculture Health Plan and

Standards (NAHP&S).

View the National Aquaculture Health Plan & Standards 2021-2023

The NAHP&S establishes guidance for national disease reporting, laboratory and

testing standardization, surveillance, response, biosecurity, data management, and

education and training, which will benefit the nation's aquaculture health. It also

outlines health inspection options to provide consistent and verifiable ways to

establish, maintain and certify the health and safety of aquatic livestock, and lists

the actions USDA will take in each of these areas to implement the plan. These

actions will support the overall health of the aquaculture industry, which will provide

protection and assurance for producers of farm-raised aquatic animals in the United

States.

With the release of this plan, USDA is taking a lead role in providing guidance for

aquatic animal health. USDA is the primary federal entity with oversight over

livestock and other agricultural commodities, so it is a natural fit to take the lead in

providing oversight for aquatic animal and aquaculture health. USDA will continue to
collaborate with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) and the

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), as well as other Federal, State, and

Tribal entities to ensure the health of all aquatic animals in the United States. The

NAHPS will be updated every 2 years by USDA in consultation with these partners.

The version released today provides guidance for the years 2021-2023.

For further information, please contact Dr. Kathleen Hartman at

Kathleen.H.Hartman@usda.gov.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         195,200
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  130,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      10,396,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,180,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      7,220,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,180,400
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,975,500
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,170,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               736,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             647,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                421,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   421,100
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.71


</TABLE>
22490

#### State v. Teel

Affirmed
Exhibit 10.2


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
(this “Amendment”), dated as of July 27, 2018, by and among NorthWest Indiana Bancorp (the “Company”),
the wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, Peoples Bank SB (“Peoples Bank,” and collectively with the Company,
the “Bank” unless otherwise noted), and Benjamin J. Bochnowski (the “Executive”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company, Peoples Bank, and
the Executive entered into an Employment Agreement, dated as of August 1, 2017 (the “Employment Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS, the Executive has served as the
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Bank pursuant to the Employment Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS, the parties now desire to make
certain modifications to the Employment Agreement as set forth in this Amendment;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the
premises and mutual covenants herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties hereby agree that the Employment
Agreement shall be, and it hereby is, amended as follows:


 


1.             Other Benefits; Vacation. Section 6 (b) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety
to read as follows:


 


“(b)Vacation.
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the Executive shall be entitled to a maximum of six weeks vacation to be taken
during such times as may be chosen by the Executive. Any vacation time not taken during any calendar year and any unused vacation
days in existence as of the date hereof may be taken with the consent of the Compensation Committee of the Board, which consent
shall not be unreasonably withheld. Vacation time for each calendar year shall be considered earned as of the first day of each
calendar year.”


 


2.             Defined Terms. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings given to them
in the Employment Agreement.


 


3.             Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each such counterpart being deemed to
be an original instrument, and all such counterparts shall together constitute the same instrument.


 


4.             Miscellaneous. Except as specifically amended by the terms of this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the
Employment Agreement are and shall remain in full force and effect for all purposes.


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 






     


     


    

 





IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.


 





	 	NORTHWEST INDIANA BANCORP
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Amy W. Han	 
	 	Name:  Amy W. Han	 
	 	Title: Chair, Compensation Committee  
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	PEOPLES BANK SB	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Amy W. Han	 
	 	By: Amy W. Han	 
	 	Title: Chair, Compensation Committee
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Benjamin J. Bochnowski	 
	 	By: Benjamin J. Bochnowski
18890

#### Nakamura v. Chun

Affirmed
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: July 2, 2015 520131 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ADAM D. KEMP,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: May 27, 2015

Before: Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Garry and Devine, JJ.

__________

Martin J. McGuinness, Saratoga Springs, for appellant.

J. Anthony Jordan, District Attorney, Fort Edward (Sara E.

Fischer of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Garry, J.

Appeal from a decision of the County Court of Washington

County (McKeighan, J.), dated May 9, 2014, which classified

defendant as a risk level II sex offender pursuant to the Sex

Offender Registration Act.

Defendant was convicted, upon his guilty plea, of 

possession of a sexual performance by a child and sentenced to 10

years of probation. The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders

prepared a risk assessment instrument (hereinafter RAI) that

presumptively classified defendant as a risk level II sex

offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see

Correction Law art 6-C). At the hearing, defendant stipulated to

the RAI score but requested a downward departure, which the

People opposed. County Court adopted the RAI score, denied the
-2- 520131 

requested downward departure and classified defendant as a risk

level II sex offender. Defendant now appeals.

Pursuant to Correction Law § 168-n (3), County Court was

required to "render an order setting forth its determinations and

the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the

determinations are based." Such order must be in writing (see

CPLR 2219 [a]; Siegel, NY Prac § 250 at 438-439 [5th ed 2011])

and "entered and filed in the office of the clerk of the court

where the action is triable" (CPLR 2220 [a]; see People v

Leopold, 13 NY3d 923, 924 [2010]; People v Smith, 11 NY3d 797,

798 [2008]). Here, the record does not reflect that a written

court order was ever entered and filed. Although County Court

executed the standard form designating defendant's risk level

classification, this form is not identified as an order (see CPLR

5512 [a]) and does not contain the "so ordered" language (People

v Joslyn, 27 AD3d 1033, 1035 [2006]; see People v Rogowski, 96

AD3d 1113, 1113 n [2012]). There is a reference to an order in

the transcript, but no such document has been produced. 

Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed, as it is not properly

before this Court (see CPLR 5513, 5515 [1]; People v Laurange, 97

AD3d 995, 996 [2012]; Matter of Graziano v County of Albany, 12

AD3d 819, 820 [2004]).

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 25, 2010 

s0517 

Order 

 

May 25, 2010 

140044 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140044 

 COA: 291599 

Wayne CC: 05-012184 

FELTON LEE BURKS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 13, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 884 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 884

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue final rules relating 
  to listing of the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes and Wyoming 
   under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2015

 Mr. Ribble (for himself, Mrs. Lummis, Mr. Benishek, Mr. Peterson, Mr. 
Duffy, Mr. Emmer, Mr. Grothman, Mr. Huizenga of Michigan, Mr. Kind, Mr. 
   Kline, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Simpson, Mr. 
    Walberg, and Mr. Walz) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue final rules relating 
  to listing of the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes and Wyoming 
   under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REISSUANCE OF FINAL RULE REGARDING GRAY WOLVES IN THE 
              WESTERN GREAT LAKES.

    Before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue the 
final rule published on December 28, 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 81666), without 
regard to any other provision of statute or regulation that applies to 
issuance of such rule. Such reissuance shall not be subject to judicial 
review.

SEC. 2. REISSUANCE OF FINAL RULE REGARDING GRAY WOLVES IN WYOMING.

    Before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue the 
final rule published on September 10, 2012 (77 Fed. Reg. 55530), 
without regard to any other provision of statute or regulation that 
applies to issuance of such rule. Such reissuance shall not be subject 
to judicial review.
                                 <all>
```
25975

#### State v. Coronel

Affirmed
18165

#### State v. Galarita

Affirmed
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

OCRDI Reports

Last Modified: 

Print

Management Directive 715

Document

Affirmative Action Plan

Document

Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Plan

Document

APHIS Limited English Proficiency Federally

Assisted Programs Strategy

Created Document
May 30, 2003

24901, 24968, 24969, 24970, 24971, 25301

#### State v. Turner

Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10-14



                BASIC LEASE INFORMATION FOR REAL PROPERTY LEASE 
                AGREEMENT BETWEEN INSIGHT IMAGING SYSTEMS, INC. 
                   AND THREE SISTERS RANCH ENTERPRISES, DATED   
               DECEMBER 11, 1992 - SPACES A, C, AND D, AS AMENDED


     The following is a summary of basic lease information relating to leases
between Insight Imaging Systems, Inc., as tenant, and Industrial Way I Limited
Partnership, as landlord, as amended.

Lease Date:                 Space A - December 11, 1992
                            Space C - October 26, 1993
                            Space D - December 11, 1992 

Address:                    981 Industrial Road
                            San Carlos, CA  94070

Landlord:                   Three Sisters Ranch Enterprises

Landlord's Address:         P.O. Box 1444
                            San Carlos, CA 94070-1444

Description:                13,171 square feet located in the San Carlos 
                            Business Park in three separate units.

Lease Expiration Date:      January 31, 1998

Rent:                       $9,054 per month
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6220
TIMOTHY SCOTT EDISON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAPTAIN HUDSON; LIEUTENANT POPE, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-55-5-CT-BR) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Scott Edison, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief without prejudice on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Edison v. Hudson , No. CA-96- 55-5-CT-BR (E.D.N.C. Jan. 30, 1996). To the extent that Appellant contends that Appellees failed to protect him from another inmate, his injuries, if any, were de minimis, and therefore do not provide the basis for a § 1983 claim. Norman v. Taylor , 25 F.3d 1259 (4th Cir. 1994) (in banc), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 63 U.S.L.W. 3538 (U.S. Jan. 17, 1995) (No. 94-6011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>   1

                                   EXHIBIT 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                                        STATE OF INCORPORATION
 ------------------                                        ----------------------
<S>                                                       <C>

Tri-Co. Foods Corp.                                            Pennsylvania

Spring Glen Fresh Foods, Inc.                                  Pennsylvania

Consumers Packing Company                                      Pennsylvania
  d/b/a Hanover Foods - Lancaster Division

Hanover Insurance Company Ltd.                             Grand Cayman, B.W.I.

Nittany Corporation                                              Delaware


NOTE:  Tri-Co. Foods Corporation has two wholly-owned subsidiaries:

Alimentos Congelados Monte Bello S.A.                     Republic of Guatemala

Sunwise Corporation                                              Florida
</TABLE>



                                     -152-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
     FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AT DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND THE
     CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
     1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
     FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         4,903
<SECURITIES>                                   3,244
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,343
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (118)
<INVENTORY>                                    3,866
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              15,432
<PP&E>                                        14,597
<DEPRECIATION>                                (6,347)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                24,821
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,842
<BONDS>                                        6,501<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                          99
<OTHER-SE>                                    15,592
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  24,821
<SALES>                                       14,839
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              14,839
<CGS>                                          6,137
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  6,137
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               8,171
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   8
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               512<F2>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (8)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      50
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (58)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (58)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.01)
        

<FN>
(1) Restated to include $6,501 of long term debt.
(2) Restated to include $112 of interest income.
</FN>



</TABLE>
#### Clarence E. BAXTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LANCER INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 161, Docket 28425.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Nov. 8, 1963.

Decided Nov. 8, 1963.

*287Grossman & Grossman, New York City (Louis Grossman, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

Levy & Nevins, New York City (Saul S. Nevins, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.

Before WATERMAN, MOORE and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s complaint seeks recovery upon three separate causes of action, and he seeks review of an order entered in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denying his motion for summary judgment for the full amount of damages claimed in his first cause of action, or, in the alternative, for partial summary judgment thereon for a lesser amount.

In open court on our own motion we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
<PAGE>
 
                                   EXHIBIT 11


                              CUSTOM CHROME, INC.
                       STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF
                               EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                            For the three months      For the nine months
                                              ended October 31         ended October 31
                                              1996         1995         1996         1995
                                            --------     --------     --------     --------
<S>                                         <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Net income...............................   $1,574,000   $1,554,000   $7,358,000   $6,731,000
                                            ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========
 
Weighted Average Shares Outstanding:
 
   Common stock..........................    5,261,000    5,073,000    5,232,000    5,035,000
 
   Common stock equivalents..............       49,000      185,000      109,000      149,000
                                            ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------
 
   Weighted average shares outstanding...    5,310,000     5,258,00    5,341,000    5,184,000
                                            ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========
 
Net income per share.....................   $     0.30   $     0.30   $     1.38   $     1.30
                                            ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========
 
</TABLE>
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply587Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Nik Apostolide... (not verified)PermalinkFebruary 3, 2018 - 9:45pmGreat work Lauren, Carrie, Andrew and Brandon!! You all inspire me everyday. _x000D_ _x000D_ Thanks for bringing civics to life, for these students and for hundreds of thousands more from around the country each year.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe